Weak/Strong Atheism/Agnosticism

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If so, no. Materialism, if held as a logical position, cannot possibly define god.

You cannot make this glib statement without a very careful definition of god. I await it with baited breath.

~~ Paul

 

[Mercutio]

You cannot make this glib statement without a very careful definition of god. I await it with baited breath.

~~ Paul

'bated breath. Abated. Held.

Unless you have recently eaten cheese, or perhaps worms.







I'll just go scream in my pillow for a bit...

 

[Tricky]

'bated breath. Abated. Held.

Unless you have recently eaten cheese, or perhaps worms.

Sally, having swallowed cheese,
Directs down holes the scented breeze,
Enticing thus with baited breath
Nice mice to an untimely death.

Geoffrey Taylor.

 

[Mr Clingford]

Geoffrey Taylor.

Like it.

So it's only nice mice that are lured to their death - there's a lesson for ye, be a bad ass mouse.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

'bated breath. Abated. Held.

Some dictionaries (American Heritage, for instance) support both spellings.
This ones apparently been misued so many times that some dictionaries are giving up. And as misusages go this one is not so bad as there is an old usage of the word "bait" that means to stop for rest. That's a similar meaning in this context.

Later edit: Searching some dictionaries makes me think some have changed their minds recently. My hardbound American Heritage says "bait" is a variant of "bate". Dictionary.com also cites American Heritage as supporting that variation under their entry for "baited". But American Heritage online at Yahoo has a usage note identifying the use of "baited" in this expression as incorrect. Confusion reigns supreme.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Some dictionaries (American Heritage, for instance) support both spellings.
This ones apparently been misued so many times that some dictionaries are giving up. And as misusages go this one is not so bad as there is an old usage of the word "bait" that means to stop for rest. That's a similar meaning in this context.

Later edit: Searching some dictionaries makes me think some have changed their minds recently. My hardbound American Heritage says "bait" is a variant of "bate". Dictionary.com also cites American Heritage as supporting that variation under their entry for "baited". But American Heritage online at Yahoo has a usage note identifying the use of "baited" in this expression as incorrect. Confusion reigns supreme.

It is for this reason that most respected sources have abandoned the expression waiting with beighted breath in favour of the altogether more easily spelt waiting with parts a-tingling.

 

[Tricky]

Some dictionaries (American Heritage, for instance) support both spellings.
This ones apparently been misued so many times that some dictionaries are giving up. And as misusages go this one is not so bad as there is an old usage of the word "bait" that means to stop for rest. That's a similar meaning in this context.

Later edit: Searching some dictionaries makes me think some have changed their minds recently. My hardbound American Heritage says "bait" is a variant of "bate". Dictionary.com also cites American Heritage as supporting that variation under their entry for "baited". But American Heritage online at Yahoo has a usage note identifying the use of "baited" in this expression as incorrect. Confusion reigns supreme.

Irregardless, it's still wrong.

 

[drkitten]

Tangentially...I think that, given the definitions of "strong atheism" et al., the strongest of the strong atheists are also strong theists. There are none so sure that Thor does not exist, as those who are certain Yahweh does. And, probably, vice versa. I mean, given that each theistic belief is separate, shouldn't each lack therof be separate? (no, not serious, pointing out the ridiculous position) So we have a-Thorists, a-Yahwehists, a-Zeusists, etc., do we not? And Yahwehists are a-Thorist, a-Zeusist, and a-alltherestist, far more "strongly" (in the sense of the definition) than any plain vanilla atheist ever was (possible exception of Dawkins).

This ends up being further evidence of the status of "atheism" as a privative (if any were needed); "atheism," as a concept, was "obviously" created by a culture dominated by a single monotheistic belief; without any competitors. Although the term technically means "absence of belief in a god or gods," in practical terms it means and has meant "one who doesn't believe in God" -- meaning, of course, Big Daddy, JC and the Spook.

And similarly, the various sub-labels were also "obviously" created by theists, since they're trying to scale atheists, not on their various beliefs regarding god(s), but instead on a one-dimensional scale regarding one's belief in the Big Three.

But once the privative term has been created, it's going to get used. It takes a special kind of nitwit to refuse to use the word "cold" simply because it was created by people who only really believe in "heat."

 

[drkitten]

I shall add "privative" to my lexicon and use it at every opportunity. People will hear me and marvel at my wisdom and erudition. I won't give you any credit. I'm just that way.

Excellent. One fewer Christmas cards I need to send....

 

[ImaginalDisc]

It doesn't. It simple renders the whole concept irrelevant to an atheist. Degrees of strength apply to belief. Lack of something is simply lack of something, not strong or weak lack of something.

I admit there are a handful of atheists who appear, frankly, evangelical about it. I am amused a bit by this, and perhaps irritated. I think they have taken bait that they should not have.

I'm curious, why do you find it offensive? Assuming one's as sure that all gods are as fictitious as Narnia, wouldn't standing idly by while people are duped and conned out of their fortunes, their liberty, and their reason be questionable?

ETA: If they're willing to put their drivel in the marketplace of ideas, it should be open to criticism.

 

[joobz]

Drkitten, Thanks for the clarification on (my) privatives. That's what I thought Mercutio was getting at. But it was also possible that he was taking issue with the common negative view of atheism.

And similarly, the various sub-labels were also "obviously" created by theists, since they're trying to scale atheists, not on their various beliefs regarding god(s), but instead on a one-dimensional scale regarding one's belief in the Big Three.

I still don't know why this would be an "obvious" assumption. Most theists are not going to care one wit about what degree a person hates* god. If they don't accept their version of god, then that's it. no subdivision needed.

Now, if you are saying that these terms were created by theists who were questioning thier faith and perhaps became atheists themselves, then I could see that.

They would have arisen due to the thiest prespective, but it is not required that they arose from theists themselves.

 

[drkitten]

I still don't know why this would be an "obvious" assumption. Most theists are not going to care one wit about what degree a person hates* god. If they don't accept their version of god, then that's it. no subdivision needed.

It's not an assumption, but a conclusion; the term "atheist" has theistic fingerprints all over it if you look at it closely.

And although you might be correct that most (numerically) theists don't care about a person's exact reasons and degree of disbelief, you're also not taking into account the long tradition of evangelism and apologetics (from which muchof this discussion derives). Most doctors aren't themselves sick, and of course most people aren't doctors -- but doctors are the ones who create most of the names for diseases, because they're the people charged with dealing with disease.

Similarly, Christians are charged under the "Great Commission" to go out and spread the word, including evangelizing any unbelievers they happen to encounter. Obviously, the more you know about why someone doesn't believe, the better you will do at convincing them to believe -- but by the same token, if you're only interested in convincing them of the reality of the Big Three, there's no need to break things down by individual gods as Mercutio facetiously did upthread.

Another theistic fingerprint is the term "strength" of atheism. Again, as Merc pointed out, lacks, like lack-of-belief, don't come in strengths or degrees. (How many hamster cages don't I have in my living room? How many birthday cakes aren't there in my fridge?) An atheist wouldn't have used terms like "strong" and "weak" atheism, since atheism isn't a belief that can be strongly or weakly held. The term "strong atheism" implies "atheism-is-a-faith," which has been dissected to death by atheists as an incorrect implication.

 

[drkitten]

I'm curious, why do you find it offensive? Assuming one's as sure that all gods are as fictitious as Narnia, wouldn't standing idly by while people are duped and conned out of their fortunes, their liberty, and their reason be questionable?

ETA: If they're willing to put their drivel in the marketplace of ideas, it should be open to criticism.

There's a difference between criticism and (counter-)evangelism.

And there's also a difference between "people [being] duped and conned out of their fortunes" and simply spending their money in a way that you disagree with.

I believe I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum that I hate shellfish. Vehemently and passionately so. I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily paying money to eat something that smells and tastes that bad. But this doesn't mean that I'm evangelizing people against shellfishor that I am actively campaigning to have the local raw bars shut down on the grounds that they are icky and that they are duping their customers out of their hard-earned fortunes.

I'm not even especially critical of shellfish eaters and shellfish restaurants.

I have known some people who were critical (but not evangelical) about shellfish restaurants, usually on public heath concerns. Shellfish can be extremely dangerous if not properly handled, and I've seen some cities where the local Board of Heath was, um, insufficiently attentive to licensing and inspection issues. But even they didn't do things like picket restaurants and such.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

There's a difference between criticism and (counter-)evangelism.

And there's also a difference between "people [being] duped and conned out of their fortunes" and simply spending their money in a way that you disagree with.

I believe I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum that I hate shellfish. Vehemently and passionately so. I cannot imagine anyone voluntarily paying money to eat something that smells and tastes that bad. But this doesn't mean that I'm evangelizing people against shellfishor that I am actively campaigning to have the local raw bars shut down on the grounds that they are icky and that they are duping their customers out of their hard-earned fortunes.

I'm not even especially critical of shellfish eaters and shellfish restaurants.

I have known some people who were critical (but not evangelical) about shellfish restaurants, usually on public heath concerns. Shellfish can be extremely dangerous if not properly handled, and I've seen some cities where the local Board of Heath was, um, insufficiently attentive to licensing and inspection issues. But even they didn't do things like picket restaurants and such.

False analogy. Eating shellfish is rarely harmful. Filling the minds of small children with images of eternal fiery torment inflicted on them by an allegedly loving god for their petty sins is arguably child abuse. Using religious texts scribbled out by ignorant desert nomads thousands of years ago to justify the marginaliztion of people of a certain race, sex, color, or sexual orientation is simply bigotry, no matter how much the bigot tries to justify it with religion. What you believe doesn't concern me. What your use your beliefs to justify might be, however. The moment someone uses their religion to inflict harm on someone else, their religion is open to criticism.

 

[joobz]

False analogy. Eating shellfish is rarely harmful. Filling the minds of small children with images of eternal fiery torment inflicted on them by an allegedly loving god for their petty sins is arguably child abuse. Using religious texts scribbled out by ignorant desert nomads thousands of years ago to justify the marginaliztion of people of a certain race, sex, color, or sexual orientation is simply bigotry, no matter how much the bigot tries to justify it with religion. What you believe doesn't concern me. What your use your beliefs to justify might be, however. The moment someone uses their religion to inflict harm on someone else, their religion is open to criticism.

Actually, eating shellfish can be dangerous. especially if you are allergic.

As for the child abuse claim, that's a stretch. Would raising children as conservatives or liberals be considered "child abuse". These viewpoints are equally subjected guilty of fearmongering.

should we hold anything to blame if there are wingnuts who use it to do harm or ill. Is it justifiable to hold movies, games, books, music responsible for people commiting violent acts? Were the beatles responsible for Manson?

 

[Mercutio]

I'm curious, why do you find it offensive? Assuming one's as sure that all gods are as fictitious as Narnia, wouldn't standing idly by while people are duped and conned out of their fortunes, their liberty, and their reason be questionable?

ETA: If they're willing to put their drivel in the marketplace of ideas, it should be open to criticism.

I think I failed to be clear. I don't have a problem promoting atheism, and I will not turn down a debate with a believer (it's fun! and I usually know more about their religion than they do...). What I find irritating is atheists arguing *for* "strong atheism" (I know, there is an excellent thread here on it), when the concept is theistic at heart (as drkitten has explained so well).

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Actually, eating shellfish can be dangerous. especially if you are allergic.

I did say "rarely" but you're equivocating now. You chose the anaolgy of shelfish because it represented an innocuous personal choice that should be none of my business, you can't turn around now and say it's harmful.

As for the child abuse claim, that's a stretch. Would raising children as conservatives or liberals be considered "child abuse". These viewpoints are equally subjected guilty of fearmongering.

Yes, it would constitute child abuse. Indoctrinating children into a complex set of beliefs they are ill equiped to understand is preying on their naivete.

should we hold anything to blame if there are wingnuts who use it to do harm or ill. Is it justifiable to hold movies, games, books, music responsible for people commiting violent acts? Were the beatles responsible for Manson?

It's prefectly reasonble to examine anything nutcases use to harm people. The connection between The Beatles and Manson is tenuous at best. The connection between Catholicism and The Crusades is much stronger.

 

[joobz]

I did say "rarely" but you're equivocating now. You chose the anaolgy of shelfish because it represented an innocuous personal choice that should be none of my business, you can't turn around now and say it's harmful.

I didn't initiate the analogy. I was simply pointing out that your statement wasn't true. As for the validity of the analogy, it's completely fair. Religion doesn't need to be inherently damaging as you claim. If a religious person proscribes to a faith that is, then that is another matter. You're equivocating all faiths as harmful.

Yes, it would constitute child abuse. Indoctrinating children into a complex set of beliefs they are ill equiped to understand is preying on their naivete.

So who decides what "complex set of beliefs" a child should be exposed to? How do you decide when this is occuring and what are the ways in which to enact punishments for violations? Will there be a handbook on child indoctrinations? I'm completely against this line of reasoning becuase it has no practical application and violates personal responsible and freedom.

It's prefectly reasonble to examine anything nutcases use to harm people. The connection between The Beatles and Manson is tenuous at best. The connection between Catholicism and The Crusades is much stronger.

I agree with you on this. I have no problem with examinations. the question is when do we decide something isn't a person's fault but the fault of what ever his/her fixation is. Also, we are continually giving worst case senarios here. What about the times when positive changes occured in a persons life from a specific influence?

Let's say that the Manson link is real. Do we halt all white album printings? What about the number of people who have enjoyed listening to the music and it helped them relax?

Catholic-crusade link is undeniable. But what about people who've worked with the poor, who helped get over drug/alcohol addiction, who use their faith as simply a means to bring comfort to themselves. Does the one outweigh the other?

I'd rather take the situations on a case-by-case basis. When bad things are done, punish those who did them.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I think I failed to be clear. I don't have a problem promoting atheism, and I will not turn down a debate with a believer (it's fun! and I usually know more about their religion than they do...). What I find irritating is atheists arguing *for* "strong atheism" (I know, there is an excellent thread here on it), when the concept is theistic at heart (as drkitten has explained so well).

I may have just failed to understand. It's a long and complicated thread.

 

[The Atheist]

As one of the most extreme atheists here, I'm going to take up the reins as well. (Sorry, Imaginal, although me agreeing with you may help frighten you back into Mercutio and drkitten's fold. ) Comparing atheism to dislike of shellfish is akin to comparing religion to table tennis - a completely irrelevant comparison.

What is so wrong about atheism which isn't apathetic? Apparently, one is an apathetic atheist, or an evangelical one. I constantly get berated by other "atheists" who tell me that I'm as bad as fundamental christians. Well, I'm sorry, but that is utter and complete BS. I don't go around telling people that sin causes you to get cancer - or like KuriousKathy did to fowlsound - telling him his cancer was designed to bring him closer to Jesus, or telling Roadtoad, Slingblade and others that their lives have been directed to bring them closer to god.

Fundamental christians lie, extort, defraud and demean. I take it that you anti-extreme atheism types realise that Stormfront members are almost exclusively christian? ALL of the christian ones use the bible and their god to justify their racism. Islam uses twisted versions of the Quran to encourage suicide-bombers. Need I mention "Jesus Camp"? Benny Hinn? Jim Jones? Jim Bakker? Jerry Falwell?

I'm not sure what drives other atheists to get pissed off with my stance, and I actually don't care. I spread no lies, I extort nothing and I commit no fraud (tempting as it is, at times)

Yes, I demean religion and christians, but if there were something in the history of the world deserving of having the piss taken out of it, it's religion. I shudder to think that with all of the scientific, pyschological and social advances we've made, 80% of Americans believe that their lives are no more than time spent in waiting to join their god.

I've spent the past couple of weeks at a board called Ship of Fools - a christian board. Me being me, I dive straight in and let them know what I think. Very few fundamentals go there. The level of abuse and profanity directed me at me was hilarious. In the end, christians, agnostics and "weak" atheists are remarkably similar - they only accept wishy-washy atheism which state that olde adage, "there is no evidence to suggest god exists". Well, baloney to you. Eyewitness evidence is allowed in a court of law and there are literally millions of christians who would swear on the bible that they have met, and spoken to, a god. Since there's no evidence that god does NOT exist, on that basis, weak atheists are also weak christians.

The Delightedly Fundamental, Evangelical, Extreme Atheist.